AbstractWe examine arguments about repression and dissociation in recent writings on the debate about the veracity of recovered memories of childhood abuse. Using the contributions of rhetorical psychology (e.g., Billig, 1987, 1991), discursive psychology (e.g., Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter, 1996), and conversational studies of argumentation (e.g., Apotheloz, Brandt, & Quiroz, 1993; Sillince, 1995) we studied the deployment of repression and dissociation by supporters of recovered memory, the refutations of skeptics, and the means by which arguments and counter-arguments were presented as factual. Supporters situate repression and dissociation within a long tradition of scholarly inquiry and draw on clients' personal accounts. Skeptics deny the existence of scientific evidence for the concept of repression. They suggest that dissociation, while a plausible phenomenon, cannot justifiably explain recovered memories. The implications for stasis and change within the recovered memory debate are discussed.The recovery of memories of childhood sexual abuse is one of the most controversial contemporary topics in the field of mental health (Gleaves, 1996). Arguments about the accuracy of recovered memories have engaged psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists from an assortment of professional backgrounds (e.g., Conway, 1997; Kristiansen, Haslip, & Kelly, 1997; Lindsay & Read, 1994, 1995; Olio & Cornell, 1994; Read & Lindsay, 1997; Saraga & MacLeod, 1997; Schacter & Curran, 1995). In order to defuse the intensity of this debate, Lindsay and Briere (1997) examined reasons for the contentiousness of the issue of recovered memories. These authors discussed general cultural and psychological factors as well as those associated with the recovered memory debate specifically. To make future dialogue about recovered memories of child sexual abuse more constructive, Lindsay and Briere (1997) recommended avoidance of generation of and overreaction to potentially polarizing (p. 643).The function of the term in the foregoing quote might be to dismiss certain opinions by characterizing them as exaggerated and insincere. But there is another sense in which rhetoric may be used. The study of rhetoric within the recent turn to discourse in the human sciences focuses on argumentation as social interaction (Antaki, 1994). Some factors Lindsay and Briere (1997) mentioned as increasing dissension about recovered memories (e.g., the dichotomizing of complex phenomena, the dissemination of polarized views by the media, and differential use of terminology by supporters and opponents) may be understood in the context of knowledge about discourse and argument. The purpose of this paper is to promote such reflection on arguments about repression and dissociation within the recovered memory debate. The latter two concepts have been invoked in explanations of the forgetting and subsequent remembering of childhood abuse. Our aim is not to review the considerable literature on this subject nor to deliver yet another opinion on the truth status of these terms. Rather, we explore a sample of writings on the use of repression and dissociation as explanations in arguments about recovered memories. We examine how repression and dissociation are used by proponents to support the veracity of recovered memories, how refutations by opponents are constructed, and the means by which participants on both sides of the debate attempt to depict their claims as fact.Turning To Discourse, Rhetoric, And ArgumentThis approach is situated within the turn to discourse that characterizes postmodern inquiry in psychology (Gergen, 1985). Language is viewed as situated social practice and is examined in terms of its construction, function, and variation (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). In contrast to a realist depiction of language as the transparent reflection of the world, the discursive turn stresses the power of language to construct or constitute reality (see Kroger & Wood, 1998). …